| Author | Post |
|---|
zenobia
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 23 April 2006 06:48 pm |
|
When i count my calories, i do not count veggies (unless it is something like an avacado, but i don't eat guacamole or anything...) if i am keeping strict count of everything else, is it ok to neglect the veggies? I usually just eat romaine, spinach, broccoli and carrots...
should I be counting them? will the amount of calories in veggies really affect my wieghtloss, or by eating more veggies, will it help me to lose more weight (i have read this, but i am not sure of the validity of the statement)?
can a person eat as many veggies as they want and not gain weight? (i try to stick between 1200-1300 cals daily- not counting veggies).
any replies would be awesome
thanks
|
Peter
Founder, caloriesperhour.com
| Joined: | 24 May 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4178 |
|
Posted: 23 April 2006 07:04 pm |
|
You are referring to The Negative Calorie Diet which you can read about here:
http://cphdiet.20bucks.invalidlink
The idea is that when you eat foods like celery, the food contains so few calories that your body actually burns more calories digesting the food than the food contains. So you lose weight eating it!
Peter
|
drumforengland
New Member
| Joined: | 16 February 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 77 |
|
Posted: 23 April 2006 07:05 pm |
|
| all food has calories in it though. i always count veggies, and because i eat so many the calories still add up.
|
Lori
Senior Member
|
Posted: 24 April 2006 09:00 am |
|
| that negative calorie diet is bland and #%@&! if u ask me.. ( i know no one did directly but still ) I dont count veggies to be honest.. unless they are potato or pumpkin.. of some kind. I dont really count fruit either.. and i eat tonns of both and still the weight is coming off. I guess vegies would count toward ur calorie intake tho.. although, weight watchers count vegetables as 0 on their points table.. so perhaps i wouldnt worry too much about how much vegies you eat.. besides, they are so good for you.. :)
|
Skipperdox
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 27 April 2006 08:01 pm |
|
I am having very good success with weight watchers. They do count veggies as zero. I think part of it is they tend to have a lot of fiber and bulk. This not only helps you feel full with few calories, but it keeps your digestive system moving along. I tend to feel lighter when my system is more regular...You know how a fast food burger will sit in your stomach like a rock.
Incidantally, veggie juices do count towards points...although the point count is usually low. That seems to fit with the energy expended eating veggies overrides the calorie count they contain. Either way, you are still getting the benefit of the vitamins they contain.
|
sugarNspice
New Member
| Joined: | 12 August 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 34 |
|
Posted: 21 August 2006 12:23 am |
|
Yeah...vegetabes and fruit don't count?
The other day I added up all the pears, plums, peaches, bananas, oranges, bell peppers, cucumber,tomato, beets, corn, watermelon, blueberries and cherries...1580 calories..Surprise!!
That didn't include the sandwiches, the yogurt and V8 Juice..
But I felt very virtuous :)
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 21 August 2006 02:29 am |
|
Technically, avocado is a fruit.
The following Pyramid illustrates how much vegetables and fruits should be eaten when following the Eat To Live approach. Vegetables: 30-70%, Fruits: 20-50%. With vegetables and fruits together amounting to between 50% and 100% of the total intake, if I don't bother counting them, my count would look rather silly 
|
Lori
Senior Member
|
Posted: 21 August 2006 09:25 am |
|
if i was to stick to that pyramid i would be paper thin.. seriously i need the breads and cereals..as it is now i eat five times a day, i vary my diet dramatically but i do stick to low fat no sugar kind of foods.. and healthy fresh fruit and veges are very much a part of that.. but i would say i eat way more cereals wholegrains etc than 5 to 20% worth of my daily intake.. and as for milk and cheese, i eat it every day(or drink it if the case may be) i love my dairy stuffs... i do go low fat or no fat however, and i guess that would make a difference.. not to mention that i am very active, both at work and at home..
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 21 August 2006 05:44 pm |
|
Lori, it sounds like you can't believe that you can get significant amounts of calories out of vegetables, fruits and legumes. Remember, we are not just talking about Celery here. If you wanted to, you can get serious amounts of calories:
100g of cooked chick-peas (1/2 a cup or less) is 120 calories.
100g of banana (quite a small one) is 95 calories.
starchy vegetables (sweet potato, butternut squash, sweetcorn, potato etc.)
fruits like cherries, grapes, mango, pineapple etc.
Don't forget that the pyramid goes with the Eat To Live diet, which emphasizes quantites. For example: at least 1 lb of raw vegetables, at least 1 lb of cooked vegetables, at least 4 pieces of fruit, at least 250g of beans/legumes.
|
Lori
Senior Member
|
Posted: 22 August 2006 06:10 am |
|
why wouldnt i believe that? I do understand that every morsel of food u put in ur mouth has calories.. and my point was (before when i was talking about weight watchers) that they count vegetables as a 0 .. the reason ? realistically not many people base their diet on vegetables.. i mean come on, lets face it, they arent the most yummy food you can eat.. nor are they that filling. But hey, if you want to eat a truck load of brocolli for dinner thats fine by me .. i was just saying that from my point of view, i woudlnt personally base my whole eating habits on eating veges.. i like variety too much to do that.. afterall, variety is the spice of life ..
starchy veges are a different matter altogether.. but still, its not the potato so much thats fattening, its all the gunk people load onto them
btw bananas cherries, grapes, mango, pineapple etc. are fruits.. and they DO count as one point in the weight watchers diet.. (which i have never followed incidently.. but have friends who have followed it and been very successful)
Last edited on 22 August 2006 06:14 am by Lori
|
sugarNspice
New Member
| Joined: | 12 August 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 34 |
|
Posted: 22 August 2006 08:05 am |
|
Vegetables and fruits are 'the spice of life." Cinammon, cloves, pepper are all vegetables...In fact, most "flavors"..strawberry, cherry, chocolate, vanilla, sasparilla come from VEGETABLES..I doubt you would love ice cream wiithout vegetable flavors...frozen cream and sugar? And vegetables are better raw...
In fact Sugar Cane is definitely as Vegetable as asparagus :)
Vegetables are boring? Tasteless? Unfilling? Only if you boil the beejessus out of them and serve with lots of salt and butter..but then steak and ice cream would be just as awful..if you boiled the beejeesus out of them and served with lots of salt and butter..
Boiled ice cream with salt and butter...Oh Yum...LOL
Last edited on 22 August 2006 08:18 am by sugarNspice
|
Lori
Senior Member
|
Posted: 22 August 2006 08:27 am |
|
Jeez talk about shot down for having an opinion.. all i was saying was that vegetables are good for you and u dont really have to worry about how much of them you eat!!! and i am talking about the general home grown, steamed (because i dont boil the #%@&! out of my veges or icecream )
i never said anything about being anti vegetable or anti anything for that matter..
i dont diet, because i choose not to.. i have however, lost 13 kg in just over 6and a 1/2 months and have managed to keep it off.. so whatever it is that i did and do, works .. each to their own i suppose..
oh and i dont use salt or butter..
|
sugarNspice
New Member
| Joined: | 12 August 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 34 |
|
Posted: 22 August 2006 04:12 pm |
|
Lori
From what you stated about your diet, my diet is very close to yours..with more grain and dairy products...So I was not shooting you down..as I would be shooting myelf down :)
I was commenting generally about American culinary perceptions..
Too many people are unaware of what a "vegetable" is..There is a perception that vegetables are a limited group of "peas, corn, beans..and the exotics..brocolli, cauliflower...bland, boiled, tasteless side dishes that are the staple of American cuisine. The other few vegetables people recognize are the "salad" vegetables..cucumber, radish, tomato and lettuce.yet vegetables are a large component of our diets..I would say the the average pizza contains more vegetables than any other food group..Tomato Sauce Is A Vegetable
Last edited on 22 August 2006 04:29 pm by sugarNspice
|
clarinetgurl
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 23 August 2006 02:53 am |
|
If tomatoes are a fruit, how come tomato sauce is a vegetable 
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you about veggies not being filling. I can't eat too awfully many vegetables before going, "Okay, I'm not hungry anymore."
...but maybe that's just me...
clarinetgurl
|
sugarNspice
New Member
| Joined: | 12 August 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 34 |
|
Posted: 23 August 2006 04:33 am |
|
Clarinet Girl..
I know ..botanically..tomato and avocado are fruits..but we think of them as vegetables..There are "vegetations" that defy classification..such as sassafras and cinnamon that are tree bark..My only point is that ..there are many vegetation type foods that people who say they don't like "vegetables.. love and readily eat..but I am not posting on this or the vegetable thread again..because I am starting to crave black bean soup with cherry puree and Champagne..for breakfast..Vanilla flavored rice pudding and baked squash sprinkled with cinammon and cocoa for lunch..Then Russian turnip and cabbage stew for dinner..(I love turnips) and I am in the raw..no dirty dish..no cook mode right now :)
...Hmm...I just reread that..I didn't mean..I was in the raw..I meant I was in the mode of eating raw....Oh Never Mind..
Last edited on 23 August 2006 04:40 am by sugarNspice
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 23 August 2006 06:48 pm |
|
Lori wrote: Nir wrote:Lori, it sounds like you can't believe that you can get significant amounts of calories out of vegetables, fruits and legumes. Remember, we are not just talking about Celery here. If you wanted to, you can get serious amounts of calories:
why wouldnt i believe that? I do understand that every morsel of food u put in ur mouth has calories
if i was to stick to that pyramid i would be paper thin.. seriously i need the breads and cereals
Sorry for the delay in responding. The text in the box above is what you originally said, that I was responding to. What did you mean by being "paper thin" if you were to follow the pyramid and limit grains to 20%? Do you perhaps mean that you just wouldn't consume the vegetables / fruits / legumes in the quantities perscribed by the pyramid and therefore under-consume calories? Either way, if you clarify what you meant I'll do my best to get it. Thanks.
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 23 August 2006 06:57 pm |
|
Lori wrote: vegetables [..] nor are they that filling.
I think that depends on what you compare with what.
For example, let us compare a large slice of bread, 100 calories, with 400g of cooked broccoli, also 100 calories. (comparing them calorie for calorie. I don't know about you, but I use a slice of bread as part of a sandwich. It isn't even that filling by itself. Now try eating that mountain of broccoli itself. Why wouldn't it be filling?
Of course, you might be doing some other comparison. If you are comparing food gram for gram, for example, then that slice of bread is just 40g, and I will agree that it provides more calories than 40g of broccoli (which by comparison provides just 1/10 of the calories, 10 calories compared with 100).
I am often appalled by how not filling the various junk foods (ice-cream, doughnuts, pastries, chocolate) are when I compare them calorie-for-calorie with vegetables.
|
Lori
Senior Member
|
Posted: 24 August 2006 04:44 am |
|
umm .. what? ... your such an analyser *giggles*
i just find eating a piece of bread fills me up more, and for a longer period of time than say, a couple of slices of wholemeal or multigrain bread. I just feel like i have eaten more .. perhaps its psychological or something .. i dunno..
I eat heaps of vegetables... for example, vegetables (steamed ones) take up more than half my plate .. and i dont mean mashed potato, cos i actually dont like potato much... and i most often have a turkey and salad wrap for lunch, and then i eat fruit pretty much all day long .. cos i pick at work.. and we make fruit platters as part of a daily routine.
as far as junk food, i dont eat it.. cant remember the last time i actually had KFC or fries .. or whatever else garbage they cook nowadays..
i guess instead of saying that i dont find vegetables filling, i should of said when i eat them i dont feel fullfilled... if that makes better sense..
|
celaine
New Member
| Joined: | 30 August 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1 |
|
Posted: 31 August 2006 12:37 pm |
|
I found this diet really helpful, as I started loosing weight the healthy way.
At first I was not sure about the whole idea of negative calorie and I thought that it is very complicated but then I started reading and searching and my friend introduced me to an e book she bought from the internet and as I was reading and started following it I found out that it make alot of sense.
I bought this e book myself and it really helped me. I really reccomend it because it encourage me and showed me step by step what I have to do.
Today 2 months later I have lost alot of fat and I am feeling confident again. Hope that I helped you with my experience and dont feel bad about yourself always say I will do it for sure!!!
.negativecaloriediet.com
Celaine 
--Edited to comply with Posting Guidelines
|
btowns911
New Member
| Joined: | 14 September 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 68 |
|
Posted: 26 September 2006 11:12 am |
|
hi there,
i was just wondering if this negative calorie diet, is a specific diet, or are you just consuming foods w/ negative calories, randomly at ur wish. I plan to start eating more of these types of foods. but please, let me know if there is a specfic diet to follow and how to go about it.
|
Prowler
New Member
| Joined: | 26 September 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 7 |
|
Posted: 26 September 2006 11:22 am |
|
| Vegetables are the negative calorie food. Yes,there are calories in every food but vegetables are one of those things that you can eat and that your body is going to burn the calorie and not convert it into fat that's why it is called negative calorie food.I don't think there is any specific diet to follow..I will try to find out..
|
zenobia
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 27 September 2006 07:37 pm |
|
If you are looking for a specific plan, i would suggest Eat to Live by Dr. Joel Fuhrman. The six week plan is basically vegan. the goal is to consume about 2 lbs of veggies a day. this will definately fill you up. you eat fruit as well and i think nuts are allowed, but not in excess if you are trying to lose. the book has some great ideas. you can buy it here or get it at the library. from what i have read, you get rapid fat loss and a very very healthy body. there is a link somewhere around here where you can get more info.
|
Peter
Founder, caloriesperhour.com
| Joined: | 24 May 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4178 |
|
Posted: 28 September 2006 04:12 pm |
|
btowns911 wrote: hi there,
i was just wondering if this negative calorie diet, is a specific diet, or are you just consuming foods w/ negative calories, randomly at ur wish. I plan to start eating more of these types of foods. but please, let me know if there is a specfic diet to follow and how to go about it.
See my post of April 23, above.
Peter
|
REDQUEEN
New Member
| Joined: | 19 December 2005 |
| Location: | Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 59 |
|
Posted: 28 September 2006 06:32 pm |
|
HEY EVERYONE,
I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE NEGATIVE CALORIE DIET. IT SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD IDEA, AND I AM DEFINATELY GOING TO TRY IT. MY QUESTION: DOES THIS STILL WORK IF THE VEGETABLES HAVE BEEN STEAMED, OR DO THE VEGETABLES HAVE TO BE EATEN RAW?
FOR EXAMPLE, I LOVE STEAMED CARROTS, GREEN BEANS, ASPARAGUS, BROCCOLI ETC. SO, DO I STILL GET THE SAME BENEFIT OF THE "NEGATIVE CALORIES" IF I CONTINUE TO EAT THEM PREPARED LIKE THIS?
ANY HELP OR  INSIGHT THAT YOU CAN GIVE ME IS GREATLY APPRECIATED!!
YOUR FRIEND,
REDQUEEN
|
jillybean720
Senior Member
|
Posted: 28 September 2006 06:56 pm |
|
Well, cooking vegetables certainly doesn't add any calories to them (unless you cook them in oil or butter, but you wouldn't have to do that with steaming), so I would think it works the same.
I don't know that this is much of a "diet." If you really eat nothing but low-calorie fruits and veggies, then you would have to eat a LOT of them to actually get enough calories in to be healthy. I've seen a website for this "diet," and unless something new has evolved in this "plan," then I really think I could only stomach so much celery, lettuce, and cucumbers  I've also read that you can't have things like salad dressing or anything with the foods because that makes them less easy for your body to process and adds calories.
Everyone's body constantly burns calories all day long. Say your metabolism burns an average of 60 calories an hour (1440 calories a day). If you only eat 50 calories worth of chocolate in that hour, then does chocolate become a "negative calorie food," since you burned 10 more calories than you ate? Or a 50-calorie cookie every hour?
|
zenobia
Distinguished Member
|
Posted: 29 September 2006 10:41 am |
|
"Everyone's body constantly burns calories all day long. Say your metabolism burns an average of 60 calories an hour (1440 calories a day). If you only eat 50 calories worth of chocolate in that hour, then does chocolate become a "negative calorie food," since you burned 10 more calories than you ate? Or a 50-calorie cookie every hour?"
jillybean-
i wish it worked that way! with negative calorie foods, it actually requires more energy (or calories) to process the food than there are calories in the food. say some green veggies are...30 cals, but it takes 40 cals (energy) to process said veggies. you have now lost 10 cals just by eating. it comes down to the veggies being -10 after all is said and done. it is about the process of digesting the food. example: it takes more of your body's energy to process protien than it does to process fats. it doesn't take much energy for your body to process chocolate (lots of fat)- say 5 cals (energy). so yes, the cals of a 40 calorie piece of chocolate is really only 35, but it is not a negative number.
illustration:
in a sixty minute period of time, you consume nothing else but a 30 calorie serving of celery (not saying it takes an hour to eat it, but you consume nothing else in that hour). you do no physical activity. ok. so you have burned the 60 cals from just sitting there being alive, consumed 30 cals, but by your body processing the celery, it used up an additional 40 cals just processing the food, therefor negating the celery. in that 60 minutes, you have burned 70 cals. that's 10 more than what you would have if you ate nothing at all (+30 celery, -40 for digestion, -60 for just being alive= -70)!
now, if you do the same with 30 cals worth of chocolate- saying it takes 5 cals to process it, you have only burned up 25 cals- (+40 for the chocolate,, -5 for digestion, -60 for just being alive= -25)
does this help?
|
jillybean720
Senior Member
|
Posted: 29 September 2006 03:04 pm |
|
zenobia wrote: does this help?
No, because basic bodily functions (such as digestion) are typically included in your lifestyle BMR calculations, are they not?.
In any case, I understand the basis of/idea behind the diet. I just think it's silly to think that you can live off these "negative-calorie foods" (basically fruits and veggies that consist of little more than crunchy colored water). If you were successful in doing so, I'd be willing to bet money that's you'd wind up with major health issues due to lack of nutrients and waaay too few calories. I mean, when you eat "regular" food, you don't say, "well, this cookie has 200 calories, but I burned 20 calories just in chewing/digestion, so it really only has 180 calories." That's just not the way calorie-counting works
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the reason this plan works is that you are cutting calories by eating more fruits and vegetables. Here's a fabulous quote I found from Anne Collins:
If you stuck a banana in your ear and ate only 1000 calories you'd lose weight, but not because of the banana! (Now substitute negative-calorie-foods for the banana.)
Personally, I couldn't do it because I don't care for very many veggies at all. But hey, if it's working for you, then rock on Any means of replacing junk food calories with healthier calories is a good idea, even if it is only because you think you're burning calories by eating them 
Last edited on 29 September 2006 03:19 pm by jillybean720
|
REDQUEEN
New Member
| Joined: | 19 December 2005 |
| Location: | Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 59 |
|
Posted: 29 September 2006 03:28 pm |
|
ZENOBIA,
YOU SEEM TO KNOW QUITE A BIT ABOUT THIS NEGATIVE FOOD DIET. COULD YOU TELL ME IF YOU CAN DOES STEAMING THE VEGGIES STILL MAKE THEM COUNT AS A NEGATIVE FOOD, OR DO THEY HAVE TO BE EATEN RAW?
WHEN I STEAM THEM, IF MIGHT USE 1 SPRAY OF BUTTER, OR SOME SALT OR PEPPER, OR EVEN A LITTLE ITALIAN FREE DRESSING, FOR EXAMPLE. BUT NO CHEESE SAUCES OR ANY OTHER SAUCES FOR THAT MATTER.
ANY HELP WOULD BE GREATLY APPRECIATED.
THANKS!
REDQUEEN
|
Nir
Senior Administrator
|
Posted: 29 September 2006 04:09 pm |
|
jillybean720,
no, digestion is NOT included in BMR/RMR. The calories used by digestion are otherwise referred to as THE THERMIC EFFECT. Read about them here:
There are very few foods where the energy to digest them is more than the energy in them. They are all vegetables, and generally speaking they are raw.
REDQUEEN,
steaming vegetables (or any kind of cooking) is essentially like part-digesting them outside of your body. So while the vegetables might still have a similiar number of calories, they might now be softer and therefore take fewer calories to digest. So their thermic effect is lower, or they are "less negative". By the same logic, if you add calories (e.g. butter or italian dressing) then those calories are not "negative". (Salt has no calories and Pepper and other spices have virtually no calories though.)
To whoever asked about whether "Negative Calorie Diet" is a general concept or a specific diet: the concept of eating foods where the thermic effect (energy to digest them) is more than the energy they provide has been around for many years, but the company that wrote the $25 eBook to make money out of it is a relatively new one.
If I was the type of person that wanted to benefit from Negative Calories and was the kind of person that wanted to FOLLOW A DIET PLAN, then a healthier plan which also incorporates many Negative Calorie foods is called: Eat To Live.
|
jillybean720
Senior Member
|
Posted: 29 September 2006 05:53 pm |
|
Nir wrote: There are very few foods where the energy to digest them is more than the energy in them. They are all vegetables, and generally speaking they are raw.
According to the sites and lists supporting this diet, it's not just vegetables--it also includes fruits (including pineapple, which I find amazing, since 1 cup of pineapple chunks has over 100 calories according to a jar I have--and it is packed in its own juice, not syrup).
I do agree that they are supposed to be raw in order for the plan to work as it says it does. From what I've read, raising the temperature of a food (through cooking) to a certain degree can change the propoerties of it and make your body digest it differently (depending on the food, of course--I'm sure there are some exceptions). Also, be careful not to cook too much, since cooking often leads to a depletion fo the natural vitamins and minerals found in raw veggies.
I don't have the ebook, so I don't know if it tells you to ONLY eat these negative-calorie foods or to incorporate them with other foods. Something I found on another website (I won't list the site, as it is another dieting site, and I'm not sure I'mallowed to post the link here) pretty much sums up how I feel about it:
However, the negative calorie diet is a case of a good thing taken to an extreme. Fibrous fruits and vegetables are a very important part of a healthy diet, but are not a healthy diet in and of themselves. Look for more sensible alternatives that include a broad range of nutrient-dense foods from a variety of sources, in sensible quantities.
I think any plan that encourages eating WHOLE foods (such as Nir's suggested Eat to Live plan) is a good idea, but not eating any protein or fat is a very BAD idea (and that's not just my opinion; it's a fact). If you just incorporate these negative-calorie foods into a more well-rounded plan, then that's fabulous, but if you think you can eat these foods exclusively, then that's where the health issues come into play, and most of the sites I've seen seem to suggest you do just that.
|
Peter
Founder, caloriesperhour.com
| Joined: | 24 May 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 4178 |
|
Posted: 30 September 2006 05:56 pm |
|
jillybean720 wrote: Everyone's body constantly burns calories all day long. Say your metabolism burns an average of 60 calories an hour (1440 calories a day). If you only eat 50 calories worth of chocolate in that hour, then does chocolate become a "negative calorie food," since you burned 10 more calories than you ate? Or a 50-calorie cookie every hour?
No, because the chocolate did not cause the negative number. In fact the chocolate DECREASED your calorie loss from 60 to 10.
An example of a negative calorie food would be celery. If you ate celery and doing so caused your body to burn an ADDITIONAL 10 calories, you would have lost 70 calories for the hour instead of 60.
Peter
Last edited on 1 October 2006 12:27 pm by
|
Current time is 02:16 pm | |
|
